I will say this when it comes to immigration and assimilation: Past performance is not an indicator of future results.

I think one thing that pro-immigratioin people are making an error in judgment is assuming that all immigrants will assimilate because others did before AND that the immigrants will be awed and overwhelmed by the wonderfulness of their new cultural surroundings. That's rather arrogant. How do we know they'll really assimilate? How do we know that they won't start their own permanent minority culture that exists in permanent opposition?

While often times immigrants do assimilate, some do not and stubbornly stick to their traditions. Off the top of my head I can think of Romanii and to a lesser extent, Jews. African-Americans were forcibly migrated and have created an enduring culture that is both in coexistence and in conflict with the dominant American culture. European colonists in various countries often remained segregated and did not assimilate into their local cultures and in fact, would almost universally impose to some extent, their own culture. Why do we expect any different in the case of other immigrants?

This is not to say that we should oppose immigration, it is to simply state that the view that "Everyone will assimilate and we'll all be happy" is not based on any sort of logic and the alternative potential outcomes should be carefully considered.

Other influential migrations into England would include: the Romans, the Pictii, the Norse, and the Anglo-Saxons. Each of these culturally disparate people substantially changed the culture, language, and ethnic composition of what is now England.

They were invasions not migrations.

Yeah, they were invasions. Invasions where the invaders decided that rather than just the usual raping and pillaging, they would just, you know, settle down, invite their families over, build a few towns, cities, and kingdoms, and just, like stay there forever and ever amen. Wait, that would be population migrations wouldn't it?

For example, over 125,000 Romans settled in Britain. They built and named dozens of towns, including London. All the other aforementioned invasions also ended with substantial numbers of invaders permanently settling.Here's a decent wikii that gives accounts of many of the main migrations into Great Britain over the last couple thousand years.

The idea that the UK is traditionally a nation of immigrants like the US is false. For centuries it has had its own unique culture.

Oh, of course. But for the centuries and millenia before that? And... what about all those colonials returning to ol' Blighty with their masters etc? Didn't that kind of shake things up a bit?And those wars with France? Didn't the French end up dumping their horrible language, aristocracy, and cuisine on y'all?

No, I'm sorry. While Britain has definitely been a global exporter of its culture these last couple hundred years, saying it has remained culturally unchanged and "pure" is ridiculous. Cultures are dynamic and ever changing. Some more than others, true, but change is inevitable no matter how hard people fight against it.

Only the dead ever remain the same.

What about dark wizards like necromancers. They could have the power to change the dead. :O

I am sympathetic to eggieguffer's position, but Cyanea's sources are rather compelling.

Gonna reply to you to save space. If you read his articles, they all mention many reasons why married men earn more than singles, as with the gender pay gap, discrimination may be one reason. E.g.

"There are three competing economic explanations. Each of the three may be partly true."

from the other one

'There are a variety of reasons that marriage might cause higher wages.'

[/quote]Because this world runs on perceptions and bias, not on reality. In Korea it is on steroids but at least the west should know better.[/quote]

This assumes that most people running companies or in charge of HR are morons. I personally don't hold that view. Why is it nowadays that every variation in group activity just has to be as a result of discrimination? Most people are looking out for themselves or their business in this world, they neither have the time nor inclination to try and make things more difficult for other people.

Quote

QuoteI'll just repeat what I said before.Insurance companies calculate how likely people are to get sick, have an accident etc... based on all their characteristics and charge them accordingly. This is not discrimination.

If you'd read a little further down, you'd have seen the insurance companies' response, which echoes what I said.

Quote

But James Lynch, an actuary with the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group, said insurers rely on hard data to set those rates.

And anyway, what's to stop other insurance companies not charging single people more and nicking the prejudiced ones' business?

As for private renters, why shouldn't they be able to decide who they allow into their houses? If they have more than one expression of interest they have to decide just like a job interview. Who's more likely to wreck the place or make a noise etc... Single mothers may have multiple unvetted partners visting the house, single males are less likely to keep the place clean etc... Sure these are stereotypes but like all stereotypes they are based on truth.

Yeah. I have done cousins who rented out a property, and it got absolutely wrecked. Now, to save themselves future hassle, they're very picky about who they rent to. I understand their reasoning completely

So in your book discrimination based on skin colour = baddiscrimination based on marital status = fine

There's no difference between the two. Only difference is that racism has become a hot topic and push-button issue that everyone has been made aware of, while singlism has yet to be publicised and enter the public consciousness in the same way.

We're on the threshold of it happening though because 49% of americans are now single or unmarried. Once the corner is turned, which will happen in a few years, expect there to be boycotting and public outrage at, e.g., the army which offers a vast array of preferential treatments and benefits to married soldiers while denying them to single service people.

Single people are getting fleeced and abused at every turn. Remember that next time you have to pay an extra "single supplement" for the same package tour as married people (yet receive worse service).

Other influential migrations into England would include: the Romans, the Pictii, the Norse, and the Anglo-Saxons. Each of these culturally disparate people substantially changed the culture, language, and ethnic composition of what is now England.

They were invasions not migrations.

Yeah, they were invasions. Invasions where the invaders decided that rather than just the usual raping and pillaging, they would just, you know, settle down, invite their families over, build a few towns, cities, and kingdoms, and just, like stay there forever and ever amen. Wait, that would be population migrations wouldn't it?

For example, over 125,000 Romans settled in Britain. They built and named dozens of towns, including London. All the other aforementioned invasions also ended with substantial numbers of invaders permanently settling.Here's a decent wikii that gives accounts of many of the main migrations into Great Britain over the last couple thousand years.

The idea that the UK is traditionally a nation of immigrants like the US is false. For centuries it has had its own unique culture.

Oh, of course. But for the centuries and millenia before that? And... what about all those colonials returning to ol' Blighty with their masters etc? Didn't that kind of shake things up a bit?And those wars with France? Didn't the French end up dumping their horrible language, aristocracy, and cuisine on y'all?

No, I'm sorry. While Britain has definitely been a global exporter of its culture these last couple hundred years, saying it has remained culturally unchanged and "pure" is ridiculous. Cultures are dynamic and ever changing. Some more than others, true, but change is inevitable no matter how hard people fight against it.

Only the dead ever remain the same.

Yes but cultures do not progress on a straight upward line, there are dips and periods of regression. The Romans had a superior culture (see 'what have the Romans ever done for us?') and following their withdrawal and the invasions by Picts, Saxons etc.. Britain went through the dark ages- a period of regression. The Romans had no choice in the matter but if they had, would they have passively accepted that all cultures change and sometimes influxes of different people can lead to a culture going downhill for a long period of time? Probably not. Even if it would eventually start progressing again.

Once again my original point was not about invasions or people adopting cultures they find attractive from other sources, it was specifically about inviting large numbers of immigrants in with a very different and, a lot of people would say regressive culture, who have no desire to assimilate. This has never happened before and, as DeMartino also pointed out, will not necessarily lead to cultural progression

So in your book discrimination based on skin colour = baddiscrimination based on marital status = fine

There's no difference between the two. Only difference is that racism has become a hot topic and push-button issue that everyone has been made aware of, while singlism has yet to be publicised and enter the public consciousness in the same way.

We're on the threshold of it happening though because 49% of americans are now single or unmarried. Once the corner is turned, which will happen in a few years, expect there to be boycotting and public outrage at, e.g., the army which offers a vast array of preferential treatments and benefits to married soldiers while denying them to single service people.

Single people are getting fleeced and abused at every turn. Remember that next time you have to pay an extra "single supplement" for the same package tour as married people (yet receive worse service).

it's more lifestyle & job/earnings status than martial. which would you rather have as tenants: two young, male recent-graduates, or a middle-aged couple? it's just risk/reward

in fact this is actually what happened: two young males didn't pay any rent, and ended up absolutely trashing the place, and the new middle-aged couple pay rent on time and don't cause any problems

i mean, even when looking for places at university, it was much easier to find a place when we were planning on living with some girls, rather than exclusively guys. it's not hard to figure out why

in fact this is actually what happened: two young males didn't pay any rent, and ended up absolutely trashing the place, and the new middle-aged couple pay rent on time and don't cause any problems

Yet still there are many cases in which the stereotypes do not match reality.

One stereotype is that single males are more likely to commit violent sexual crimes.

This bias persists despite the fact that statistics prove that violent crime against women is overwhelmingly committed by spouses or partners in a relationship. Not by single guys.

Another example is single men are often assumed to be a creepy paedophile risk. Once again, stats show it is usually married men that commit such abuses. Yet the bias continues and married men are usually preferred for positions of responsibility with minors.

Another example: single people are often characterized as slovenly or messy, thought to be living in apartments strewn with old pizza boxes. Simply not true: anecdotal evidence shows single men generally develop more domestic skills such as cooking or cleanliness while married men are the slobs who let their wives do all the housework.

So you see.. single people are constantly portrayed in a bad light by a society which worships marriage above all else. They have taken all the goodies and handed them to married people and called it "family values". Actually its just discrimination.

Quote from: Eggieguffer

This has never happened before

Well, it has, its just that the country concerned has never recovered from it, or in the case of a country in southern Europe, took 800 years to turn it back.

Yes but cultures do not progress on a straight upward line, there are dips and periods of regression. The Romans had a superior culture (see 'what have the Romans ever done for us?') and following their withdrawal and the invasions by Picts, Saxons etc.. Britain went through the dark ages- a period of regression. The Romans had no choice in the matter but if they had, would they have passively accepted that all cultures change and sometimes influxes of different people can lead to a culture going downhill for a long period of time? Probably not. Even if it would eventually start progressing again.

Once again my original point was not about invasions or people adopting cultures they find attractive from other sources, it was specifically about inviting large numbers of immigrants in with a very different and, a lot of people would say regressive culture, who have no desire to assimilate. This has never happened before and, as DeMartino also pointed out, will not necessarily lead to cultural progression

Sure, I can agree with that. Cultures change, but there's no particular reason why those changes have to be "good", or "bad", or whatever.

in fact this is actually what happened: two young males didn't pay any rent, and ended up absolutely trashing the place, and the new middle-aged couple pay rent on time and don't cause any problems

Yet still there are many cases in which the stereotypes do not match reality.

One stereotype is that single males are more likely to commit violent sexual crimes.

This bias persists despite the fact that statistics prove that violent crime against women is overwhelmingly committed by spouses or partners in a relationship. Not by single guys.

Another example is single men are often assumed to be a creepy paedophile risk. Once again, stats show it is usually married men that commit such abuses. Yet the bias continues and married men are usually preferred for positions of responsibility with minors.

Another example: single people are often characterized as slovenly or messy, thought to be living in apartments strewn with old pizza boxes. Simply not true: anecdotal evidence shows single men generally develop more domestic skills such as cooking or cleanliness while married men are the slobs who let their wives do all the housework.

So you see.. single people are constantly portrayed in a bad light by a society which worships marriage above all else. They have taken all the goodies and handed them to married people and called it "family values". Actually its just discrimination.

Quote from: Eggieguffer

This has never happened before

Well, it has, its just that the country concerned has never recovered from it, or in the case of a country in southern Europe, took 800 years to turn it back.

not saying i particuarly agree with it, but i do understand why people make the choices they do (in regarding to tenants, at least)

in fact this is actually what happened: two young males didn't pay any rent, and ended up absolutely trashing the place, and the new middle-aged couple pay rent on time and don't cause any problems

Yet still there are many cases in which the stereotypes do not match reality.

One stereotype is that single males are more likely to commit violent sexual crimes.

This bias persists despite the fact that statistics prove that violent crime against women is overwhelmingly committed by spouses or partners in a relationship. Not by single guys.

Another example is single men are often assumed to be a creepy paedophile risk. Once again, stats show it is usually married men that commit such abuses. Yet the bias continues and married men are usually preferred for positions of responsibility with minors.

Another example: single people are often characterized as slovenly or messy, thought to be living in apartments strewn with old pizza boxes. Simply not true: anecdotal evidence shows single men generally develop more domestic skills such as cooking or cleanliness while married men are the slobs who let their wives do all the housework.

So you see.. single people are constantly portrayed in a bad light by a society which worships marriage above all else. They have taken all the goodies and handed them to married people and called it "family values". Actually its just discrimination

You seem to be lumping sexual violence (I assume you mean rape) and domestic violence together, which is confusing.

That fact about sexual violence being committed by someone you know has been around for ages, I don't think people still believe you're most likely to get raped by a stranger in a ski mask down an alley.

Someone you know doesn't have to be someone you're in a relationship with though, it could be a friend of a friend, an ex, a one night stand etc...ie single people.

Domestic violence carried out by men or women is generally part of a relationship, true, but again a lot of these incidents will be in 'on, off' relationships or by exes, so again technically single people.

Sure, I bet Pedophiles are often in relationships when they get caught the first time, as a way of hiding their proclivities, but probably stay single after that.

Women generally care about hygiene more than men, so even if a husband/partner doesn't do anything round the house the average women will make up the short fall and keep the place cleaner than the average single guy.

Ironically, I'm on holiday in Europe right now and this very morning I turned up at a hotel I'd booked to be told no kids allowed. No reason given, just hotel policy. That would definitely not happen to a singleton

Ironically, I'm on holiday in Europe right now and this very morning I turned up at a hotel I'd booked to be told no kids allowed. No reason given, just hotel policy. That would definitely not happen to a singleton

Could possibly an alcohol serving related thing. I once stayed at a hotel that, because they served alcohol at that hotel, NO ONE under 18 was allowed to stay there, no exceptions. Like, they wouldn't even let family's stay there, if their kids were under 18.I was 16 or 17 at the time, and when I booked the hotel, none of those warnings showed up. Luckily, my mum's friend lived nearby, so I was able to just crash there :D

Ironically, I'm on holiday in Europe right now and this very morning I turned up at a hotel I'd booked to be told no kids allowed. No reason given, just hotel policy. That would definitely not happen to a singleton

If that is true it is absolutely despicable given Europe's demographic crisis. In some instances (e.g hostels or hotels with very small rooms) I could see that children would not be able to stay there. Other than that they should be able to stay.

Ironically, I'm on holiday in Europe right now and this very morning I turned up at a hotel I'd booked to be told no kids allowed. No reason given, just hotel policy. That would definitely not happen to a singleton

Could possibly an alcohol serving related thing. I once stayed at a hotel that, because they served alcohol at that hotel, NO ONE under 18 was allowed to stay there, no exceptions. Like, they wouldn't even let family's stay there, if their kids were under 18.I was 16 or 17 at the time, and when I booked the hotel, none of those warnings showed up. Luckily, my mum's friend lived nearby, so I was able to just crash there :D